provide for the community college type for some of these private institutions as it should.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you for your very informative statement. I think it will be very helpful to this committee in working on this bill and I hope we bring out a pay bill in the not too distant future. I think many things here will be of great value to us. Mr. STEPHENS. Thank you, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I personally regret to see a decline in the Federal directed research. Aside from the fact that 75 percent of all research in the country is financed by the Federal Government, I think the fact that only 20 percent of that is done by the Government itself indicates that so little of the total is done by the Government that in my opinion it should be doing more, not to pull down on the research done by the private institutions or companies, but certainly we ought to do enough of that in Federal laboratories to have a testing ground to compare with research done in private nonprofit institutions and private profit institutions.

I think we should have all three types of research competing, you might say, so that we reach maximum efficiency in our research and I don't think we get that competitive thing if by such low salary scales we pull down the research done by the Federal Government itself.

Mr. STEPHENS. I thoroughly agree with the distinguished senior Senator from Texas.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you for your statement.

Mr. STEPHENS. Thank you.

Senator YARBOROUGH. The next witness is Mr. Elmer F. Bennett of the American Bar Association, accompanied by Edwin S. Rockefeller.

STATEMENT OF ELMER F. BENNETT; ACCOMPANIED BY EDWIN S. ROCKEFELLER, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to appear here today. My name is Elmer F. Bennett. I am an attorney in private practice and a member of the firm of Ely, Duncan & Bennett, in Washington, D.C. My appearance today is on behalf of the Special Committee on Association Program for Lawyers in Government, which is a committee of the American Bar Association. The chairman of the special committee, Thomas G. Meeker of Philadelphia, Pa., unfortunately was unable to be here today and requested that I appear instead. With me is Edwin S. Rockefeller, another member of the committee, who also is in private practice. I should add at this point that this committee was established by President John Satterfield of the American Bar Association as the first major effort of the American Bar Association to examine the problems of Federal and other governmental attorneys and to turn the association program to the good end of giving a better professional recognition of the importance of Government lawyers.

Before proceeding further I would like to call your attention to the attached copy of a resolution of the American Bar Association authorizing our appearance today. This resolution was approved by the association's house of delegates at its midyear meeting on February 21.

Under this resolution the American Bar Association puts itself on record as favoring legislation to increase the salaries of Federal Government lawyers, particularly those in civil service grades above GS-12. The difficulty of the Federal Government in retaining its experienced attorneys is becoming progressively more acute. There are several aspects of the Federal salary structure which aggravates this problem. The first of these is the fact that compensation levels for comparable legal experience are much higher in private industry. Another factor is the rigid salary ceiling imposed by the Federal classification system, which puts an arbitrary limit on the prospects for advancement of capable Government attorneys.

Your attention is invited to exhibit A which is a tabulation of data from a 1960-61 survey made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The comparisons set forth demonstrates the disparity between the experienced salary industry lawyer and the experienced salaried Federal lawyer. Lawyers employed in law firms are not included in this

survey.

Our special committee was informed of one Federal agency that lost almost 20 percent of its total attorney personnel during 1961, even though the agency had the benefit of an increased appropriation that year. Many of these men had 10 or more years with the Government, and four had more than 20 years of Federal experience. Our committee was advised that most of these experienced men said even as little as a pay increase of a couple of thousand dollars would have kept them in public service.

The present salary ceiling also creates a situation under which younger attorneys look toward private practice sooner than they otherwise would. Thus young attorneys are frequently trained and then shortly leave Federal service before the Government is able to recoup its training investment.

The apparent limit on advancement also deters many a young lawyer who otherwise would be attracted to career service.

Experienced Government attorneys are on the firing line against the best attorneys and the best law firms in the United States in matters of great public consequence, often involving millions of dollars. The American people are entitled to the very best in legal representation in the performance of governmental functions.

If the Federal establishment is to attract and hold the talent essential to these objectives, there must be an adequate range of compensation to provide career incentives.

These views I express today are not only based on the conclusions of our American Bar Association special committee. They are also my own observations after nearly 19 years of personal experience in Federal service.

(The information referred to follows:)

CONCLUSIONS OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ASSOCIATION PROGRAM FOR LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT

(NOTE. The following resolutions were adopted by the house of delegates, February 1962.)

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Whereas salaries of Government employees generally are currently under public consideration and the American Bar Association is interested particularly in Government legal employees, especially in the retention in Government of experienced attorneys; and

Whereas the special committee on association program for lawyers in Government has studied problems of recruitment and retention of competent attorneys in the Federal service; and

Whereas, as a result of a report by said special committee to the association, there appears to be an urgent need for increased compensation for Government lawyers in the upper grades to attract and retain the experienced legal talent that the Federal Government should have at its disposal:

Resolved, That the American Bar Association urges the Congress to consider favorably legislation designed to increase the salaries of Federal Government lawyers, particularly in the upper grades (above civil service classification grade 12), in order to assure compensation adequate to responsibilities being discharged by top career lawyers, and that the Congress be urged to appropriate the funds necessary to finance the increases.

Resolved, That the officers of the association and the special committee on association program for lawyers in Government be authorized to appear before appropriate committees of Congress in support of the foregoing resolution.

EXHIBIT A.-Salary comparison, industry attorneys versus Government attorneys,

Industry data from "National Survey of Professional, Administrative, Technical, and Clerical Pay, Winter 1960-61," Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data were obtained on 5,195 attorneys employed in various manufacturing and nonmanufacturing industries. Law firms were not included.

2 The first step rate of the general schedule. This step was selected for comparative purposes on the premise that most attorneys are promoted from this grade to the next higher grade shortly after attaining the second step rate. 3 The middle step rate of the general schedule. This step rate was selected for comparative purposes on the premise that many attorneys who are in this grade have attained this rate or a higher rate

Mr. BENNETT. I would like to add that Mr. Rockefeller, who is accompanying me, has a brief statement which we will submit for the record. This statement I would like to call your attention because it includes an article from the American Bar Association Journal which sets forth additional data which we believe will be of great importance to this committee.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Would Mr. Rockefeller care to state the substance of his statement or condense it?

STATEMENT OF EDWIN S. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your courtesy and I think the best way I can return the courtesy is merely to refer you to the copies which I have left and with your permission I would ask that they be put in the record.

The gist of it is, and the only thing I can speak with any particular knowledge of is, and in the papers I leave with you there are some survey materials to back up this conclusion, that young attorneys do leave the Federal Government, a great number of them, because of the lack of financial incentive to stay.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Did you bring your survey on the reasons, financial or otherwise, attorneys give for leaving Federal service?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Sir, I have left some copies of a report of the entire survey and there is on page 12 a discussion of pay, and toward the end is a discussion of tabulations having to do with men leaving the Federal service. We did not attempt to be too precise about drawing conclusions about anybody's primary reason for leaving the Government in that survey.

Senator YARBOROUGH. You hear a lot this day of the dead hand of the Federal Government. What percentage left because they felt it deadened their talents? Was there a very high percentage on that?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I do recall, and I mention it in this statement, that 60 percent of those we surveyed, and of course that only represents a portion of younger Government lawyers, and we define "younger" to be 35 years of age or younger, felt that existing opportunities in the Federal Government, and we are speaking about pay, were not sufficient to keep them.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I am referring to other factors. Did they feel that being in the Federal service stifled their intellectual development? Did any really significant percentage have that feeling? I think it would be very interesting as a social study if it did.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. We attempted in our attitude survey to inquire what it was that was important to these men, including that which you mentioned, sir, and responsibility and opportunity for initiative, as I can best recall, and I have to look in the report, were things that the men felt they did get in the Federal Government.

Senator YARBOROUGH. They did get it in the Federal service?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Yes.

Mr. BENNETT. As a matter of fact, Senator, I would like to add to that picture my own knowledge of many, many very fine Government lawyers with whom I have had the privilege of working over a period of many years who actually have said to me that the only reason they stayed in the Government was because they felt that they had more opportunity to handle important matters and to have more of a stimulating challenge than they would in the routine everyday practice in corporation counsel offices or in many private law firms.

This has been a factor which has tended to keep a number of men rather than the reverse side of the coin.

Senator YARBOROUGH. You understand I didn't mean it was the person that was the dead hand of the Federal Government. I was just using that phrase that a lot of this "hate Government" literature circulated throughout the country use and I wanted to see what your experience had been as to whether the lawyers felt that it was intellectually deadening or intellectually stimulating.

I just wanted to find out if your survey had covered that point. Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Yes; it has, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Ánd with the results that have been stated here by Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett, do you know what percentage of the lawyers of America are in Government service? I don't mean Federal service alone, but Federal, State, city, county, and municipal.

Mr. BENNETT. The figures that we have are based on the Martindale-Hubbell survey made in 1958, I think, which indicated there were something like 12,500 lawyers in Federal service-this does not include State and local governments-out of a total of something over 2,000 lawyers in the United States as a whole.

Senator YARBOROUGH. They figured about 250,000 lawyers, didn't they, at that time?

Mr. BENNETT. I think that is about right. It was over 200,000. Senator YARBOROUGH. I remember a survey some 5 or 6 years ago with a rough estimate of 20 percent of the lawyers, and I wondered if there had been any change in that estimate.

Mr. BENNETT. We don't have those figures, but they may be available if you wish us to get them for you, Senator.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I don't want to take up any time. If you happen to know where there is a table I would like to see it.

Any questions by the staff? You didn't include "The Young Government Lawyer" in your statement for the record, did you, Mr. Rockefeller?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Sir, I want to do whatever is helpful to the committee. I have left some copies and if it burdens the record I don't want to ask that.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I will order it incorporated in the record by reference.

(The statement of Mr. Rockefeller follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDWIN S. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. Chairman, my name is Edwin S. Rockefeller. I am a partner in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Wald, Harkrader & Rockefeller. From 1956 to 1961, I was employed by the Federal Trade Commission. Since leaving the Commission, my law practice has kept me in close touch with Government operations and personnel, particularly those in antitrust and trade regulation. While at the Federal Trade Commission and since leaving it, my official and bar association activities have perhaps given me a better opportunity than most young lawyers have to consider problems of recruitment and retention of capable lawyers in the Federal establishment.

I do not believe that the existing problem of recruitment and retention in the public service of an adequate proportion of the best in the legal profession should be ignored by the private bar or by the taxpayers generally. I have tried to state my reasons for this in an article published in the American Bar Association Journal in April 1961 (vol. 47, p. 350), a copy of which is attached to this statement for filing with the committee.

I am here today as a member of the American Bar Association's Special Committee on Lawyers in Government to add briefly but sincerely my support to the statement made by Mr. Elmer Bennett on behalf of our committee and of the American Bar Association as authorized by the ABA House of Delegates in February 1962.

The American Bar Association urges this committee and the Congress to consider favorably legislation designed to increase the salaries of Federal Government lawyers, particularly in the upper grades. Some such increase is necessary if the Government is to attract and retain in sufficient numbers capable members of the legal profession needed by the Federal Government. Personal experience, theoretical discussion, and empirical evidence convince me that this is so.

In 1960, a bar association committee of young lawyers in Government which I organized and of which I was chairman surveyed some 1,900 attorneys, 35 years of age or younger, employed by the Federal Government. Our questionnaire sought information on attitudes of the young Government laywer toward his work, his employer, his colleagues, and toward the Government legal service as a career. A total of 327 questionnaires from the military service and 615 questionnaires from civilian attorneys were actually tabulated. A full report was published and a copy forwarded to the chairman of this committee. I have brought along additional copies for filing with this statement.

On page 12 of the report we stated a tentative conclusion: "While not the most important consideration to them, most young attorneys did express dissatisfaction with the opportunity for salary advancement provided by their present job. Sixty percent stated that the existing opportunities are not sufficient.'

Present pay schedules for junior Federal attorneys are fairly competitive with opportunities elsewhere. For the first few years, a Government attorney may hope to make financial progress roughly comparable to that of his colleagues outside Government. But, after a few years, the young Government lawyer realizes